Barbarossa: how would you do it?

[Thegn]

Michele...
"As mentioned, distance from the supply bases is a key factor. A side movement... from...your own railheads isn't the same as a movement of the same length, but farther and farther away from one railhead."
I really don't want to belabor the point, Michele, but the Wehrmacht Aug. stop-line was in the Yelnya salient. The road distance from Yelnya to Moscow is 227 miles. The road distance from Yelnya to Kiev is 449 miles.

The railroads the Wehrmacht was using for supply at this time led into Smolensk & Roslavl. Both railheads were used to support Typhoon, while the Roslavl railhead was the primary one used to support the offensive vs Kiev.

Now Smolensk is 246 miles from Moscow. Roslavl is 242 miles from Moscow, but it's 373 miles from Kiev. Smolensk is even farther-- 396 miles.

You've said that the limiting distance the Wehrmacht could conduct an offensive from its railheads was ~300 miles-- an assessment with which I happen to agree.

...so perhaps you'd be good enough to explain why it was possible for the Wehrmacht to conduct an offensive vs Kiev at a minimum distance of 373 miles from its railheads, yet it couldn't conduct an offensive vs Moscow at a minimum distance of 242 miles, if its limiting distance was indeed ~300 miles.

It's true that there was a parallel rail line that ran to Bryansk thru Gomel, but Gomel remained in Russian hands until Sept. That rail line, while closer to Kiev, was not available to the Wehrmacht. The nearest railhead that was available to support the Kiev op was located at Minsk-- still a distance of 355 miles from Kiev.

...and all this talk about flanks completely ignores the fact, 1., that Hitler didn't order the offensive vs Kiev for that reason (he expressly said it was for economic reasons, which is completely irrelevant); & 2., that a march against Kiev equally exposes the army's left flank, just as a march vs Moscow would have exposed its right flank. So how is protecting your flank determinative, when you've gotta expose 1 flank or the other no matter what you do?

"Replace 'dissipated' with 'uselessly expended' and Miranda's point stands perfectly well."
I assume that you & I are going to have to disagree on that point. To divert your strongest panzer formation from the prime objective & send it 450 miles in the opposite direction in order to destroy what is primarily an infantry army that can't hurt you anyway-- & to do all this for for purely economic reasons-- that's what I'd call a useless expenditure of forces. To take Moscow, on the other hand, would have freed up German infantry to take Leningrad & panzers to take Kiev, & it would have given you a better road network to do it across.

Look-- I realize that neither of us is gonna persuade the other. But if I can't persuade you of this, then I hope that I've at least shown that there are some potent arguments to be made on the opposite side of the debate from yours. The most potent of all is that what they did didn't work-- so do something else. But I'll grant that some of your arguments even make sense. Clear your flanks before you advance-- I get that. Really. And that rail line from Brest thru Minsk to Smolensk-- it does look terribly exposed with the Russians holding Gomel. But name me 1 time in 1941 when the Russians carried out a successful flanking attack. You can't do it, because in '41 the Russians were trying desperately just to hold on, to adapt & react-- not to take the offensive. The way to win-- the only way for the Wehrmacht to win-- was to take advantage of that mind-set & keep pressing 'em hard.

kalamona...
"The more i read from thegn, the more i like his version."
Thank you. Please understand that I'm not motivated here by some crypto, neo-Nazi desire to see the bad guys win. My motivation derives solely from the fact that a couple of decades in uniform, coupled with a study of military history, has taught me, above all, that we live in a far more dangerous world than most people realize. The supreme measure of just how dangerous is the fact that a couple of generations ago a madman gained control of 1 of the countries of Europe & used that control to leverage himself into conquering most of a continent.

I firmly believe that Hitler came far closer to winning than most people give him credit for, & I completely reject the notion-- prevalent on this board-- that "it's far easier to find ways for Hitler to do worse than he did in OTL, than to find ways for him to win". I believe that had he not been a complete raving idiot, then he would have won.

Had Hitler managed to conquer Russia, for example-- or even to obtain a separate peace-- then he'd have become unstoppable short of nukes. Nor would nukes have been as successful vs Hitler as they were with Hirohito. Japan was fortunate in having a supreme leader who was sane, & who forced a surrender when things became impossible. Hitler, on the other hand, would have watched all Europe burn in nuclear fires before he gave up. (For a preview of this, see my thread-- "What if Germany does beat Russia?")

sharlin...
"Its been drilled into you since childhood if you're going to fight that the enemy are sub human, undeserving of things like pity or mercy."
That was the propaganda line. The actual mindset at the top, even among guys like Hitler, Himmler, & Goering-- was a lot less dogmatic, as I've documented. The actual practice was reasonably flexible.

Orry...
"If it had not happened in OTL it would be interesting how many people would be happy to prove that there was no way the Germans could capture 600K+ men in the South..."
Thank you. That is exactly my point in a nutshell.
Thegn.

 

[AdA]

Thegn

You've entered taboo land when you said the nazis could win.
This is not purely the result of Nazi hating magical thinking but:
1. The USSR not giving up, since it knew, unlike the French, what it was fighting, and winning a fight to the bitter end with Russia being nearly impossible. (as opposed to cornering them into a defeat when they're having one of their cyclical political snafus.) they knew WW2 was to death, and they die hard.
2. The US would get into the fight. There is no credible way for Germany to beat the US.They were rich, didn't knew what losing meant or cared to know, had unassailable natural defences, and would get stronger every year.
3. Europeans are not really as good natured and peaceful as they appear. After a few years of occupation they get monumentally pissed and go crazy. Spanish war of independence 1808/1814 crazy. If the war lasted a bit more, occupied Europe would go crazy on the nazis, and there weren't enough Kapos to help them.

 

[Thegn]

You've entered taboo land when you said the nazis could win.

I'm not insensitive to that fact. The taboo, I mean. I did extensive reading on this board before posting anything. I'm aware-- & shocked-- at how prejudiced some of the otherwise best-informed contributors are when it comes to the likelihood of a Nazi victory.

In order to appreciate my thinking on this point, please re-read what I wrote in my last post to kalamona.

The USSR not giving up, since...winning a fight to the bitter end with Russia being nearly impossible.

...the key word here being "nearly".

The keys to defeating Russia are to conceal your ultimate objective of destroying the Slav peoples, to enlist them in an anti-Communist crusade, & to get all your panzers pointed in the same direction.

Are you aware that in 1941 it was common in most towns when the Nazis arrived, the people greeted them with garlands of flowers & gifts of food? They actually believed the Nazis came as liberators. They naively took the black cross painted on Nazi vehicles as an indication that the Nazis came as Christian anti-Communist Crusaders. Harness that, & the USSR is finished.

The US would get into the fight. There is no credible way for Germany to beat the US.

There are strong reasons to believe what you say, & very little reason to believe the contrary, so you're probably right.

...but, there was a slim possibility the Nazis could have obtained a stalemate even against the USA. For a description of how this can be done, see my thread, "What if Germany does beat Russia?" The most likely outcome, of course, is that the US A-bombs Germany into radioactive oblivion. But there's is an alternative.

A long shot? Yeah-- but a long shot is better than no shot. It might have come out this way.

...of course, as pointed out in my thread, even a Nazi stalemate is only temporary. The US won't forget, a stalemate just postpones the ultimate showdown into the future, & unless the Nazis develop nukes the US will eventually prevail. But that would happen in a very different world than ours.

After a few years of occupation (the Europeans) get monumentally pissed and go crazy.

Maybe so. Like I said to kalamona, I'm not some crypto-neo-fascist rooting for a Nazi victory. My father & grandfather fought those guys & my Dad was WIA. Twice. In the long run I think the Nazis are ultimately doomed-- but the long run in that case might have been 1960, 1980-- or the 21st Century.

In the long run we're all doomed, AdA. You, me, the USA, the Roman Empire-- all of it. It's what happens along the way that matters. I guess my ultimate point is that we got off easy. The Nazis could have done one hell of a lot more damage on their way down.
Thegn.

 

[AdA]

The taboo I was referring too is not that some form of centralised European dictatorship could win a global war in an alternate 1940s and rule for some time. It's that OTL nazi Germany could have lead that movement. Nazi Germany took on oposition that was too strong, too soon, with too few forces. Too get them to win you need to many magical bullets. They got monumentally lucky in OTL with under performing opponents. To do better up to 1942, their oponents would need to do even worst, and they would have to be perfect.
The changes you have too do to them take you so far from OTL you're no longer doing AH, but historic based fantasy, and that's what the consensus on the thread is set against.
You can do it, but with a disclaimer, like my ASBats in need of rehab on my opening post in this thread. My "cheating" was to handle the Axis like a proto NATO and do away with the unworkable bits of nazi traits.
those people with flowers would turn to sub machine guns pretty soon anyway...

 

[merlin]

I suppose there are two aspects of this thread:

1) That crops up many times along the lines of could Germany have beaten Russia - some say no, others say yes - if Britain had been knocked out of the war in '40, so no Africa, or Balkan campaign, much less bombers over germany, and no lesnd-lease to Russia.

2) On the other hand, on a stricter interpretation of the thread, then its a question of what changes in strategy, tactics and changes in equipement that could have made a difference. But again that 'difference' can be debated!
For example - even though Minsk & Smolensk were taken, if attacked late July early August - could Leningrad fall? Or would the Russians fight them off. Likewise with Moscow - it's a big city, we don't know if the civilians would panic, turn against the 'communists' or man the barricades!!
Even if both cities are taken, it doesn't mean the wars over, only that it will take longer.
Re: the Kiev Russian Forces - with the 'front line' being further and further east, they feel in danger of being isolated and being cut-off, so rather than strike north against the German flank - they may withdraw east to maintain contact.

But that is what AH is for - to plot different possibilities - there but for the grace of God it could have turned out different.

 

[SgtD]

Thegn

You've entered taboo land when you said the nazis could win.
This is not purely the result of Nazi hating magical thinking but:
1. The USSR not giving up, since it knew, unlike the French, what it was fighting, and winning a fight to the bitter end with Russia being nearly impossible. (as opposed to cornering them into a defeat when they're having one of their cyclical political snafus.) they knew WW2 was to death, and they die hard.
.

The Russians were surrendering in droves during the first couple months. Fighting till the bitter end didn't occur until the Russian soldiers figured out what their fate in German hands was going to be....

 

[Thegn]

The taboo I was referring too is not that some form of centralised European dictatorship could win a global war in an alternate 1940s and rule for some time. It's that OTL nazi Germany could have lead that movement...

If I'm not mistaken, the question asked by the OP was how each of us would do it. I answered that question. In order to do so I quite reasonably assumed that success was possible.

I'm not insensitive to the fact that many of the points you raise are quite valid. The Nazis did take on too much, too early, with too little, & they did have under-performing opponents. That said, I strongly disagree that the Nazis couldn't have done 'way better with the exact same forces & situations that they faced. And I stand by my statement that I'm shocked & literally quite amazed at the strong prejudice against this position on the board.

And I know that there's a strong minority opinion that backs my position on this, that has been cowed into silence by more vocal members, because I get PMs all the time-- & a few brief public postings-- that are supportive of my views.

The fact that the Nazis were morally bankrupt does not automatically make them losers. Their mistakes did that. Take away some of those mistakes & they do much better.
Thegn.